Time to end the "trans" delusion

lgbt-disney-stonetoss-comic.png
 
WinterBorn said:
I did not speak for anyone else.
Click to expand...

No, pop pop?

WinterBorn said:
"Us" meaning the people on this site.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
So what effect have trannies had on you?
Click to expand...

When someone demands to know how an issue affects you personally before acknowledging its importance or validity, several logical fallacies might be at play:

  1. Ad Hominem (Personal Incredibility): This fallacy involves questioning the validity of an argument based on personal circumstances or experiences of the person making the argument rather than the argument's merit itself. Here, the focus is shifted from the issue to how it personally impacts the individual.
    • Example: "If this issue doesn't affect you directly, why should we care?"
  2. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): This occurs when someone argues that something is not true or not an issue because there's no personal evidence or experience of it. Just because an issue doesn't personally affect someone doesn't mean it isn't significant for others or society at large.
    • Example: "Since you're not personally harmed by it, it must not be a real problem."
  3. False Dichotomy (or False Dilemma): This fallacy presents only two alternatives when more might exist, here suggesting that an issue is only worth discussing if it directly impacts the individual personally.
    • Example: "If it doesn't affect you, then why bother?"
  4. Straw Man: By demanding personal impact, the individual might be misrepresenting the argument to make it easier to dismiss. The real argument might be about broader societal, ethical, or communal implications, not just personal ones.
    • Example: "You only care because it affects you," when the argument might be about systemic issues affecting many.
  5. Red Herring: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. Demanding personal impact can distract from the actual discussion about the issue's broader significance.
    • Example: Instead of discussing the policy's general effects, the conversation is steered towards whether it affects the individual directly.
  6. Genetic Fallacy: This involves dismissing an idea based on its origin or the circumstances of its proposer. Demanding personal impact can be seen as an attempt to judge the argument based on who is presenting it rather than its inherent logic or evidence.
    • Example: "You're only bringing this up because you're personally involved."

By focusing on personal impact, these fallacies aim to undermine or sidestep the argument's substance, potentially ignoring wider implications, moral considerations, or collective responsibility.

@Grok


Roll, Tide!
 
Diogenes said:
No, pop pop?





When someone demands to know how an issue affects you personally before acknowledging its importance or validity, several logical fallacies might be at play:

  1. Ad Hominem (Personal Incredibility): This fallacy involves questioning the validity of an argument based on personal circumstances or experiences of the person making the argument rather than the argument's merit itself. Here, the focus is shifted from the issue to how it personally impacts the individual.
    • Example: "If this issue doesn't affect you directly, why should we care?"
  2. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): This occurs when someone argues that something is not true or not an issue because there's no personal evidence or experience of it. Just because an issue doesn't personally affect someone doesn't mean it isn't significant for others or society at large.
    • Example: "Since you're not personally harmed by it, it must not be a real problem."
  3. False Dichotomy (or False Dilemma): This fallacy presents only two alternatives when more might exist, here suggesting that an issue is only worth discussing if it directly impacts the individual personally.
    • Example: "If it doesn't affect you, then why bother?"
  4. Straw Man: By demanding personal impact, the individual might be misrepresenting the argument to make it easier to dismiss. The real argument might be about broader societal, ethical, or communal implications, not just personal ones.
    • Example: "You only care because it affects you," when the argument might be about systemic issues affecting many.
  5. Red Herring: This fallacy introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. Demanding personal impact can distract from the actual discussion about the issue's broader significance.
    • Example: Instead of discussing the policy's general effects, the conversation is steered towards whether it affects the individual directly.
  6. Genetic Fallacy: This involves dismissing an idea based on its origin or the circumstances of its proposer. Demanding personal impact can be seen as an attempt to judge the argument based on who is presenting it rather than its inherent logic or evidence.
    • Example: "You're only bringing this up because you're personally involved."

By focusing on personal impact, these fallacies aim to undermine or sidestep the argument's substance, potentially ignoring wider implications, moral considerations, or collective responsibility.

@Grok


Roll, Tide!
Click to expand...

No, pup pup.

As I said before, I am not speaking FOR anyone. But if you do reply, it is seen by the entire forum. Since I am part of this forum, "us" is the appropriate word to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top